I used to love PC gaming, but the enjoyment just isn't there anymore. Mainly it is the hardware / driver / tweaking issues and ridiculous DRM that killed it for me.
Clearly you don't remember fiddling with config.sys for those last few K needed for the game you just bought. And then flipping through the manual looking for word 6 of paragraph 2 on page 12 so you could actually play it. If PC gaming can survive that, it'll survive this no problem.
I think it's fair enough. A large number of asians are missing an enzyme necessary for the easy metabolism of alcohol. I wouldn't give up the ability to drink a nice beer for all the sushi in Japan.
Unfortunately, it seems that the angle most of the media has been playing up is "Wikileaks pwns DoD", not "US military massacres unarmed civilians and reporters".
It seems to me that whoever leaked the video must have been able to view it, since they knew what was on it. So they would have had the video, as well as the decryption keys. If they're going to leak the video, why not leak the keys too?
You get a wider view of your surroundings with a 3rd person view. You can easily turn your head in reality, but in a game it's a bit harder. To make up for this they position the camera further back which gives you a better view.
You're right that you can't see what's directly in front of your car in 3rd person mode. But you don't really need to. What's directly in front of your car now was a little further in front of your car a moment ago. That's when you need to see it and react to it. By the time it's blocked by your car, it's too late.
Short of setting up 3 screens around the players head, 3rd person view is about as good as it gets.
Fair enough. My point was really that even conservatives, traditionally "the right" in America, would be just as upset with Bush's trampling of the constitution. Conservatives believe in small government, and the rule of law. On both counts Bush's warrantless wiretapping, etc, fails. Opposition to Bush came from both the left and the right. Those who supported him were something else entirely. If fascism is technically incorrect, we can just call them authoritarians. Calling them neo-conservatives does a disservice to any actual conservatives that still exist.
That Bush argued that the executive was allowed to unilaterally search due to a commander in chief doctrine was what really got him in trouble with the left, and, I think on that score the lefties were correct.
Expecting the President to follow the law isn't a leftist belief. Replace "left" with "non-fascist" and you come closer to reality.
Re:Like Woz didn't move on a LONG time ago?
on
The Apple Two
·
· Score: 1
The "other Steve" wants to benefit off of BSD but then close up stuff tighter than Microsoft does now.
I am getting sick and tired of the "war between nations is obsolete" rhetoric. It makes no fucking sense,
It makes perfect sense. It moves war into the territory of police, giving you a reason to militarize the police. You can then use military equipment and tactics against your own people more easily. As a ruler you would want to do this because the greatest threat any government faces is its own people. (and vice versa)
This is a win for the rule-of-law and should be applauded.
Funny how the rule of law only applies when it's in favor of powerful interests. Can't sanction Comcast - rule of law. Can't imprison AIG execs - rule of law. Yet CIA agents who break the law by torturing get a free pass. Same for FBI agents placing illegal wiretaps.
It's about time we realize that in the US the rule of law is meaningless. It applies only when it is convenient for the powerful.
If they wanted their freedom, they'd be crying out over the mass imprisonment of Americans for victimless crimes. They'd also realize that being able to acquire health insurance when you're between jobs, or starting your own consulting business makes you MORE free. Nothing I've seen suggests that they actually care one bit about freedom.
Fine with me. I wouldn't want to play Scrabble with anyone who would want to use proper nouns anyway. Does that make me a jerk? Probably, but I'm ok with that. I'd rather just not play than play a fundamentally broken game.
Yep. Look at the 80s. PCs were ridiculously easy to pirate. Every computer user had a stack of copied floppies. Console games were impossible to pirate without some specialized hardware. Consoles should have had a huge advantage in attracting developers. That didn't stop people from making great games on the PC.
Then consider the situation today. There's definitely a lot of piracy. But there are also a lot (lot!) more PC owners today. And their average technical sophistication is lower. So I'd be surprised if the piracy rate today is any higher than back then. Now consider that it's fairly easy to pirate games for any console (besides the PS3). So consoles shouldn't have as much of an advantage. Why would you refuse to make PC games when the market is so much bigger than it was, and you'll be pirated anyway if you move to consoles?
Also note how the PS3, despite being the most powerful console, having the Playstation name, AND still being uncracked is doing relatively poorly. I don't think that's a coincidence. The biggest pirates are also the biggest purchasers.
Exactly. Even if there's a ton of people pirating on the PC, there's still many people who are willing to pay for good games. Refusing to publish on the PC is simply leaving money on the table. Someone else will come by and claim it.
You may be on to something, because I'm a very bad story teller. But i have to ask, what is the value in stories that aren't true? Aren't they just as likely to mislead as inform?
Slashdot Mirror
Have you played Snatcher?
I used to love PC gaming, but the enjoyment just isn't there anymore. Mainly it is the hardware / driver / tweaking issues and ridiculous DRM that killed it for me.
Clearly you don't remember fiddling with config.sys for those last few K needed for the game you just bought. And then flipping through the manual looking for word 6 of paragraph 2 on page 12 so you could actually play it. If PC gaming can survive that, it'll survive this no problem.
In laymans terms, they can now detect the force emanating from a single midichlorian.
Why in gods name should a web browser be using 50% of your CPU in the first place?
I'm not really a fan of Sapporo. Or any other beer that uses rice for that matter.
I think it's fair enough. A large number of asians are missing an enzyme necessary for the easy metabolism of alcohol. I wouldn't give up the ability to drink a nice beer for all the sushi in Japan.
Isn't the best clock going to be one in your frame of reference?
I don't follow. If you're not going to leak the keys, what's the point of leaking the video?
Unfortunately, it seems that the angle most of the media has been playing up is "Wikileaks pwns DoD", not "US military massacres unarmed civilians and reporters".
It seems to me that whoever leaked the video must have been able to view it, since they knew what was on it. So they would have had the video, as well as the decryption keys. If they're going to leak the video, why not leak the keys too?
You get a wider view of your surroundings with a 3rd person view. You can easily turn your head in reality, but in a game it's a bit harder. To make up for this they position the camera further back which gives you a better view.
You're right that you can't see what's directly in front of your car in 3rd person mode. But you don't really need to. What's directly in front of your car now was a little further in front of your car a moment ago. That's when you need to see it and react to it. By the time it's blocked by your car, it's too late.
Short of setting up 3 screens around the players head, 3rd person view is about as good as it gets.
Fair enough. My point was really that even conservatives, traditionally "the right" in America, would be just as upset with Bush's trampling of the constitution. Conservatives believe in small government, and the rule of law. On both counts Bush's warrantless wiretapping, etc, fails. Opposition to Bush came from both the left and the right. Those who supported him were something else entirely. If fascism is technically incorrect, we can just call them authoritarians. Calling them neo-conservatives does a disservice to any actual conservatives that still exist.
That Bush argued that the executive was allowed to unilaterally search due to a commander in chief doctrine was what really got him in trouble with the left, and, I think on that score the lefties were correct.
Expecting the President to follow the law isn't a leftist belief. Replace "left" with "non-fascist" and you come closer to reality.
The "other Steve" wants to benefit off of BSD but then close up stuff tighter than Microsoft does now.
Isn't that what BSD software is for?
There's even a card that will allow you to interface your Vectrex with a computer running MAME.
I am getting sick and tired of the "war between nations is obsolete" rhetoric. It makes no fucking sense,
It makes perfect sense. It moves war into the territory of police, giving you a reason to militarize the police. You can then use military equipment and tactics against your own people more easily. As a ruler you would want to do this because the greatest threat any government faces is its own people. (and vice versa)
This is a win for the rule-of-law and should be applauded.
Funny how the rule of law only applies when it's in favor of powerful interests. Can't sanction Comcast - rule of law. Can't imprison AIG execs - rule of law. Yet CIA agents who break the law by torturing get a free pass. Same for FBI agents placing illegal wiretaps.
It's about time we realize that in the US the rule of law is meaningless. It applies only when it is convenient for the powerful.
If they wanted their freedom, they'd be crying out over the mass imprisonment of Americans for victimless crimes. They'd also realize that being able to acquire health insurance when you're between jobs, or starting your own consulting business makes you MORE free. Nothing I've seen suggests that they actually care one bit about freedom.
Fine with me. I wouldn't want to play Scrabble with anyone who would want to use proper nouns anyway. Does that make me a jerk? Probably, but I'm ok with that. I'd rather just not play than play a fundamentally broken game.
Yep. Look at the 80s. PCs were ridiculously easy to pirate. Every computer user had a stack of copied floppies. Console games were impossible to pirate without some specialized hardware. Consoles should have had a huge advantage in attracting developers. That didn't stop people from making great games on the PC.
Then consider the situation today. There's definitely a lot of piracy. But there are also a lot (lot!) more PC owners today. And their average technical sophistication is lower. So I'd be surprised if the piracy rate today is any higher than back then. Now consider that it's fairly easy to pirate games for any console (besides the PS3). So consoles shouldn't have as much of an advantage. Why would you refuse to make PC games when the market is so much bigger than it was, and you'll be pirated anyway if you move to consoles?
Also note how the PS3, despite being the most powerful console, having the Playstation name, AND still being uncracked is doing relatively poorly. I don't think that's a coincidence. The biggest pirates are also the biggest purchasers.
Exactly. Even if there's a ton of people pirating on the PC, there's still many people who are willing to pay for good games. Refusing to publish on the PC is simply leaving money on the table. Someone else will come by and claim it.
Yes. This will never fly. I will not play Scrabble with such rules.
And if you're too lazy to memorize the 2 letter words, that's just your disadvantage.
The result is a huge decrease in civilian casualties, but results in MORE bitching by uninformed simpletons.
I think that's a pretty good trade.
Just because you pirate the living crap out of something doesn't mean you're going to buy the software.
It certainly doesn't. But it makes it much more likely that I will.
You may be on to something, because I'm a very bad story teller. But i have to ask, what is the value in stories that aren't true? Aren't they just as likely to mislead as inform?